CIS 336 - Enterprise Architecture

Assignment 1: Models for Competitive Dynamics

Criteria

Unacceptable

Below 60% F

Meets Minimum Expectations

60-69% D

Fair

70-79% C

Proficient

80-89% B

Exemplary

90-100% A

1. Compare and contrast the DYB and GYB strategies in terms of the ability to sustain a business in the marketplace over the long term, to be competitive against rivals, and profitability.

Weight: 20%

Did not submit or incompletely compared and contrasted the DYB and GYB strategies in terms of the ability to sustain a business in the marketplace over the long term, to be competitive against rivals, and profitability.

Insufficiently compared and contrasted the DYB and GYB strategies in terms of the ability to sustain a business in the marketplace over the long term, to be competitive against rivals, and profitability.

Partially compared and contrasted the DYB and GYB strategies in terms of the ability to sustain a business in the marketplace over the long term, to be competitive against rivals, and profitability.

Satisfactorily compared and contrasted the DYB and GYB strategies in terms of the ability to sustain a business in the marketplace over the long term, to be competitive against rivals, and profitability.

Thoroughly compared and contrasted the DYB and GYB strategies in terms of the ability to sustain a business in the marketplace over the long term, to be competitive against rivals, and profitability.

2. Examine the “cannibalization” strategy and determine if it is or is not a better strategy compared to the DYB strategy for growth, competitiveness, and market leadership. Provide two business examples. Weight: 25%

Did not submit or incompletely examined the “cannibalization” strategy and did not submit or incompletely determined if it is or is not a better strategy compared to the DYB strategy for growth, competitiveness, and market leadership. Did not submit or incompletely provided two business examples.

Insufficiently examined the “cannibalization” strategy and insufficiently determined if it is or is not a better strategy compared to the DYB strategy for growth, competitiveness, and market leadership. Insufficiently provided two business examples.

Partially examined the “cannibalization” strategy and partially determined if it is or is not a better strategy compared to the DYB strategy for growth, competitiveness, and market leadership. Partially provided two business examples.

Satisfactorily examined the “cannibalization” strategy and satisfactorily determined if it is or is not a better strategy compared to the DYB strategy for growth, competitiveness, and market leadership. Satisfactorily provided two business examples.

Thoroughly examined the “cannibalization” strategy and thoroughly determined if it is or is not a better strategy compared to the DYB strategy for growth, competitiveness, and market leadership. Thoroughly provided two business examples.

3. Determine whether or not changes in business strategy should entail reassessment of IS. Provide three (3) reasons to support your position.

Weight: 20%

Did not submit or incompletely determined whether or not changes in business strategy should entail reassessment of IS. Did not submit or incompletely provided three reasons to support your position.

Insufficiently determined whether or not changes in business strategy should entail reassessment of IS. Insufficiently provided three reasons to support your position.

Partially determined whether or not changes in business strategy should entail reassessment of IS. Partially provided three reasons to support your position.

Satisfactorily determined whether or not changes in business strategy should entail reassessment of IS. Satisfactorily provided three reasons to support your position.

Thoroughly determined whether or not changes in business strategy should entail reassessment of IS. Thoroughly provided three  reasons to support your position.

4. Examine how firms can use social IT in alignment with organizational strategy and IS strategy. Consider collaborative capabilities; and what, how, and who should use social IT for a social business strategy.

Weight: 20%

Did not submit or incompletely examined how firms can use social IT in alignment with organizational strategy and IS strategy. Did not submit or incompletely considered collaborative capabilities; and what, how, and who should use social IT for a social business strategy.

Insufficiently examined how firms can use social IT in alignment with organizational strategy and IS strategy. Insufficiently considered collaborative capabilities; and what, how, and who should use social IT for a social business strategy.

Partially examined how firms can use social IT in alignment with organizational strategy and IS strategy. Partially considered collaborative capabilities; and  what, how, and who should use social IT for a social business strategy.

Satisfactorily examined how firms can use social IT in alignment with organizational strategy and IS strategy. Satisfactorily considered collaborative capabilities; and what, how, and who should use social IT for a social business strategy.

Thoroughly examined how firms can use social IT in alignment with organizational strategy and IS strategy. Thoroughly considered collaborative capabilities; and what, how, and who should use social IT for a social business strategy.

5. 3 references

Weight: 5%

No references provided

Does not meet the required number of references; all references poor quality choices.

Does not meet the required number of references; some references poor quality choices.

Meets number of required references; all references high quality choices.

Exceeds number of required references; all references high quality choices.

6. Clarity, writing mechanics, and formatting requirements

Weight: 10%

More than 8 errors present

7-8 errors present

5-6 errors present

3-4 errors present

0-2 errors present